Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Read this, give me your thoughts.


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Jay Roosevelt said:

At the end of the day this is all he said/she said. There's no way to prove or disprove anything so it becomes all about optics for both sides.

I wouldn't say that.  Most of these women in the criminal case admitted they were out for cash.   That's not he said/she said.  That's admitting under oath that money was the motivator. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first thought was "is that real?" I'm not saying it is or isn't. I personally don't want Watson here regardless of that situation but all I can see there is a typed page talking about the case. I have no idea where it comes from or who typed it. For all I know Zod typed it. It really doesn't mean anything unless it's verified as authentic. DRAFT KENNY PICKETT!!! 

 

Lets Go Reaction GIF by Mason Ramsey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, La Pantera said:

Looks to be a filing from the defense.

A document by the defense attempting to create doubt. Along with some character assassinations thrown in for good measure.  That is what the defense does.  I don't trust lawyers so this document does little to sway me.  

  • Pie 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Actual victims, even one, would have been enough evidence to force a criminal trial. 

IMO....More Money Grabbers

This appears to be correct.  Each charge is considered individually.  If any charge met the legal requirements, it can be pursued individually.  The fact that no criminal charges were pursued say a lot.  The fact that it took the grand jury only a day to decide this for all charges says a lot.

I'm not a fan of Watson's moral choices at all.  But there was no evidence that met the legal requirements to suggest he is a criminal.  This is to me the important thing we all should take from this.  He's not a criminal. 

You can still dislike Watson for whatever reason you like.  But I'd remind everyone here to look back on their own life and remember that most of us have made questionable moral choices in the past.  Being rich only exacerbates the situation.  If I was rich at that age, I daresay I'd have made some really stupid moral choices.

I won't cast stones at him for that.  I'll hope that he learns from it.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mickeye76 said:

A document by the defense attempting to create doubt. Along with some character assassinations thrown in for good measure.  That is what the defense does.  I don't trust lawyers so this document does little to sway me.  

That's the damnable thing. A defenses job is to do whatever is necessary to get their clients off the hook, including victim character assassination. Making victims look like perpetrators and their client as the victim which makes it so difficult for any victims to come forward. 

They get their clients off by making victims look as bad and unreliable as possible. We're these wholesome girls? Don't know. Probably not. Did he coerce them to do things they didn't want to do? Maybe, but all the defense had to do was make that assertion questionable. 

Were some out for money? Probably, but that doesn't mean that no one was violated or pressured into doing something they didn't want to do.

He made some piss poor decisions in all this. The guy went full moron in trying to get the extra duties from these women instead of seeking another route for gratification. At the very least I hope he learned some lessons on where not to look. He earned the suspicion regarding his character and his actions. 

Real victims of sexual misconduct have a hard enough time coming forward. Poo like this, whether or not the plaintiffs were legit or not, only make it worse.

  • Pie 4
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The other draft picks have turned out pretty well. Brooks will too.
    • I'm still not touching Hunter He again said the other day that he plans on playing both sides of the ball in the NFL.  If he is allowed to do that, he won't be as good on either side as his potential and he's going to have serious injury issues and have a short career.  If he's not allowed to do it, I think he's going to become a problem when the team isn't winning as he's going to feel him not being used on both sides of the ball is why. He's being coddled in that environment with Deion and I think it's doing a disservice to him to prepare him for life in the NFL where your coach isn't a 2nd father to you, to where you can just walk into his locker room and steal his shoes like Hunter does to Deion.
    • He’s a tad behind them. Around 15ish of 32 starters in the league. He’s well ahead of a lot of guys. Tua, Bryce, Cousins (present), Rodgers (current), Devito/Jones, Minshew, Russ (current), Watson, Smith, Carr, T Laws deep ball is weak as poo IMO, there’s plenty. And it’s not like everyone is ripping 60+ers. The key component is if you can rip and maintain velocity of the 30-40 yarders which he does super well. Legit every report out there from Brugler to PFF to PFN document him as good/above average arm strength.  Eye test tells me it’s pretty much that as well, slightly above average.
×
×
  • Create New...